Yes. I take the threat for corruption seriously in all forms, and therefore I tend to look at things on the basis of 'janitorial efficiency'. As I see it, between a corrupt monarch and a corrupt congress, it's a simpler matter to not only *identify* the corruption in one man, but also to depose one man, than to 'clean up' corruption in a bureaucracy. I mentioned in my first comment that once corruption ferments in a congress (especially in a multi-party system), it can be obfuscated by partisanship. Hands are always tied by the opposition of the other party. Of course, the drawback to this is that monarchies can result in more unstable governments over time and problems with nepotism. It may be the case that a republic is superior, so let me say only in the most general way: smaller government is better than larger government. I'd take a union of states with governors initiated by the church in each state who participated within a larger parliamentary system to discuss national concerns, but I'd be strongly in support of the elimination of the fed.